The Queen and Australia: Residences, Governor-General, etc...


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
It is not only shrewd but to me, very respectful. It shows just how highly thought of and respected HM is.
 
Federal government MPs who support a constitutional monarchy have questioned an address by the Prime Minister to the Australian Republican Movement, with one warning that Malcolm Turnbull had a “political death wish” if he kept talking about the issue.

While some Coalition MPs considered his speech to be “very mild”, others warned it was a distraction the government could not afford to have, amid debate about power prices and the health of the economy.
Read more: PM's 'Keatingesque' support for republic a 'political death wish' | The New Daily
 
Who knows which government will be in power when the Queen passes on. The Turnbull government is not very popular and there are so many other things to worry about than this very expensive measure.
 
The ALP have the Republic as part of their manifesto and more of the Coalition are moving towards republicanism than monarchy so it really won't matter which side is in power as both are increasingly moving to support that position - even if, at the moment, the population as a whole aren't doing so.
 
Easy now, folks. She isn't dead yet. :ermm:
 
Malcolm Turnbull‏ @TurnbullMalcolm
Although I am a Republican, I am also an Elizabethan. It was an honour to meet Her Majesty today at Buckingham Palace.
Picture: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DEdj66eUIAAf_qf.jpg

Video:
The Queen has held an audience with Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull at Buckingham Palace:
Home - ITNSource News

He has meet her before, but this was his first time audience, and he seemed a bit nervous (who can blame him). He walked straight towards the Queen - even before her equerry Wing Commander Sam Fletcher had presented him to her.


Malcolm Turnbull says he is a Republican and an Elizabethan as he meets the Queen
"Even Republicans like myself can be, and in my case are, very strong Elizabethans as well," Mr Turnbull said.

"Discussions are always confidential, but I'm sure her Majesty will be keen to know what the major issues are and developments in Australia. I look forward to her advice and wisdom, she has after all advised many, many prime ministers.".

"The Queen has embodied selfless public service, dignity, wisdom, leadership for longer and more magnificently than anyone alive today, there is no doubt."

Mr Turnbull said that, back in 1999 when he was head of the defeated Republican campaign, he had never imagined that 18 years later he would meet the monarch as Prime Minister of Australia.

"She has been a remarkable leader of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, she has been our head of state for all of that time, and I will be very honoured to meet her as Australia's Prime Minister and to share my thoughts about Australia and hear what she has to say."
Nice of him to say, and I agree with everything, she's second to none.
 
Last edited:
Read more: Bill Shorten renews push for Australian republic, vows to hold referendum within first term of Labor government - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Opposition Leader Bill Shorten has promised a national vote on Australia becoming a republic during the first term of a Labor Government.

Mr Shorten said he would hold a referendum with a simple yes or no answer to decide whether Australia should remain in the monarchy.

"One question — do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state? 'Yes' or 'No'?" he said.

Key points:

Bill Shorten says if the yes vote prevails then it can be considered how head of state is chosen

Second vote could be in a different term of parliament

Announcement may place political pressure on Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull

1. I actually think that the Republicans will have a chance to win if they ask the question like that.

2. If they had chosen the model (an apolitical president elected by the people or parliament) before asking for a republic with an Australian head of state, then the monarchists would have had a better chance of winning.

3. But the two monarchist organizations are almost confident of victory and 'Australians for Constitutional Monarchy' argues that the Governor-General is the head of state, while the HM is the sovereign.

4. I understand that some Australians want an Australian head of state, but Bill Shorten could have waited until after the Queen's death. She has been your monarch for 65 years and is 91-years-old, and this is the thanks you give her.

5. And yes, she have seen other realms go. But that was countries that became independent after she ascended to the throne, with the exception of Ceylon, Pakistan and South Africa, which already was independent when she become the monarch. The last independent realm who replaised her with another head of state was Mauritius in 1992.

6. But there is something else about Australia, who has had her as monarch since she ascended in 1952.

7. From me to australians: I'm so tired (as a half-Brit) of this nonsense, so just spend a lot of money on electing that president of yours, who will not have a fraction of the Queen's popularity. So do it now, it's Australia's loss. It was nice to share the world's most popular/iconic and famous head of state with you, but goodbye and good luck!
 
Last edited:
Hold on a minute, there's some time to go here! The next Federal election isn't due to be called until November 2019. At the moment a Liberal govt is in headed by Malcolm Turnbull. Yes, Turnbull is a republican but has stated on the record that in his opinion nothing should happen with reference to a republic until the Queen's death.

IF Bill Shorten wins, and he may well do, he says he will address the issue of a republic at the END of his first term. Most terms in Australia run for three years. There have been exceptions, but we'll say three years. That brings things to the end of 2022. If the Shorten govt holds a referendum in its second term, (if it gets one) that may well be in 2023.

Plus the Constitution put in a lot of checks and balances that has historically stopped a lot of referendums from being passed. So there is certainly time before anything happens. It could well be in Charles's reign before a republic is declared.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Yes, I'm aware of all that.

Read more: Australians 'couldn't give a toss' about being a republic: Joyce mocks Shorten's vote pledge | SBS News
Liberal Senator Eric Abetz said the plan was just "a peek into the ultra-left wing agenda" the nation would be subjected to under Labor.

"Australia is the best country on earth yet Bill Shorten and his Labor Party want to change everything about it," he said in a statement.

"Our system of government, our flag, our national anthem and even Australia Day are on the chopping block under Labor in favour of a political correctness crusade of which extreme Green Senator Lee Rhiannon would be proud."

Senator Abetz said Australians would "not stomach these divisive distractions" that were designed to shift focus from issues that mattered.

Mr Shorten is expected to promise to appoint a minister with direct responsibility for driving the debate, during a speech to the Australian Republican Movement in Melbourne on Saturday night.
 
If the story is true then Shorten isn't actually proposing a referendum at all but a plebiscite. A plebiscite is an advisory vote in which the government seeks the opinion of the population while a referendum is a binding change to the constitution. The story, as I am reading it, is that it will be along the lines of 'do you think Australia should be a republic?' - a plebiscite to find out the views of the Australian people. This has be ALP policy for many years and both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd both promised to hold such a plebiscite in their first term in office and neither did (probably because neither lasted a full term before being stabbed in the back by the other).

We had a referendum in 1999 as that was a vote to change the constitution as it set out not only that we would be a republic but how that would work. The second part of this isn't included in Shorten's proposal but would follow when they could agree on a model - and that is a major sticking point - the Republicans themselves can't agree on the model and they certainly don't seem to get it that the people seem to support a directly elected president, if they support it at all.

Of course his first term could be much closer than the next election as well - with all these MPs being found to be ineligible due to their dual citizenship status it is possible that Turnbull could lose his very slim majority within a short period of time.
 
Last edited:
:previous: Bill Shorten wants a plebiscite in his first term on a straightforward question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?"

Shorten's promise means a first vote (the plebiscite) on the issue would be held sometime between 2019 and 2022, and would be followed by a second vote that would settle the tricky issue of the best model - for example, whether a president was chosen by direct election, or the parliament.
 
Last edited:
How do you change the Australian Constitution in the first place?
This, I imagine, is very much a change of the Constitution.

Would a 51 % majority of votes be enough?
Or do you need a X % majority of the voters to vote in favor of a change? (That makes a huge difference!)

IMO a yes/no to a republic cannot be anything but a political guideline, if there are no concrete alternatives presented to the voters.
The republicans can't say after a yes, to a republic, that a republic is now certain and that the monarchy has been finally rejected, on the basis of such a referendum.
It only means that a majority of the voters wish to be presented with alternatives to a monarchy.
So a yes to a republic, does not automatically mean a no to the monarchy.

It could be binding if the referendum presented these alternatives:
Do you prefer:
A) A monarch as head of state, status quo.
B) A politically neutral president as head of state
C) A president with executive powers?
D) The Speaker of the Parliament as head of state?
- and so on.
But presented with such an option, the republicans would extremely likely to loose the first round. Because the republican votes would be divided.
 
Last edited:
Read more: Bill Shorten renews push for Australian republic, vows to hold referendum within first term of Labor government - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


1. I actually think that the Republicans will have a chance to win if they ask the question like that.

2. If they had chosen the model (an apolitical president elected by the people or parliament) before asking for a republic with an Australian head of state, then the monarchists would have had a better chance of winning.

3. But the two monarchist organizations are almost confident of victory and 'Australians for Constitutional Monarchy' argues that the Governor-General is the head of state, while the HM is the sovereign.

4. I understand that some Australians want an Australian head of state, but Bill Shorten could have waited until after the Queen's death. She has been your monarch for 65 years and is 91-years-old, and this is the thanks you give her.

5. And yes, she have seen other realms go. But that was countries that became independent after she ascended to the throne, with the exception of Ceylon, Pakistan and South Africa, which already was independent when she become the monarch. The last independent realm who replaised her with another head of state was Mauritius in 1992.

6. But there is something else about Australia, who has had her as monarch since she ascended in 1952.

7. From me to australians: I'm so tired (as a half-Brit) of this nonsense, so just spend a lot of money on electing that president of yours, who will not have a fraction of the Queen's popularity. So do it now, it's Australia's loss. It was nice to share the world's most popular/iconic and famous head of state with you, but goodbye and good luck!

Bill Shorten wants a simple "yes" or "no" question because it is the republicans' best shot to win. I doubt the monarchists will agree to that though and they have a point. How can people vote for a republic without knowing what kind of republic they will get ?

Having said that, it is likely that Australia will eventually become a republic at some point in the future, The question is whether that will trigger a domino effect, most certainly in New Zealand and perhaps in Canada. Interestingly, I suspect the percentage of hardcore monarchists is actually probably lower in Canada than in Australia, but a republic is so low in the agenda of most Canadians that their attitude seems to be that they simply don't care.
 
This is going to be the stumbling block here. I would only vote for an Irish-type presidential system, i.e. replace the current G-G with someone doing essentially the same thing but called President. (This is also the sort of model envisaged by the ARM.) I would not want a popularly-elected political president. IMO once you start giving the president real power you get into the sort of strife they have in the US. I would rather have one of the ineffectual but benign Windsor chinless wonders as the head of state than a Trump. We have a system that works. It has its flaws but it works.

But the president of Ireland is popularly elected ! Maybe you are thinking more along the lines of the German system, which is actually a good one that I wish the US had adopted.

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Eastern Jutland, Denmark
Posts: 9,506
How do you change the Australian Constitution in the first place?
This, I imagine, is very much a change of the Constitution.

Would a 51 % majority of votes be enough?
Or do you need a X % majority of the voters to vote in favor of a change? (That makes a huge difference!)

As I understand it, a constitutional amendment must be passed by an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament (or passed by at least one house twice by absolute majority), and then it must be approved in a referendum by a majority of the voters nationwide and by a majority of the voters in a majority of states (what is called a "double majority").

I don't quite understand Bill Shorten's proposal. Since he is not proposing a vote on a specific republican bill amending the constitution, should we conclude that his proposed plebiscite is non-binding (as BTW the Brexit referendum was in the UK) ? If specific legislation is introduced thereafter (assuming 'yes' wins), then would a second binding referendum be necessary with the double-majority constitutional requirement for it to succeed ?
 
Last edited:
I imagine the biggest question for voters would be how would any new Head of State be chosen? If they were to be directly elected by the people then I think more people would be supportive whereas if the plan was the President (or whatever they would be called) would be chosen by the Parliament or other group (as in Germany) I think it would be much less supported as people may well feel it they are not going to directly choose their own head of state then why not stick with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Read more: A big night for the Republic - but a long way to go
18 years on, the question of how we would chose a President, remains the biggest sticking point in the debate.

Mr Shorten knows that, so does Mr Turnbull. Both are republicans, both want change, but the Labor leader is proposing a time frame.

If the majority of Australians vote 'Yes' in Mr Shorten’s national vote, then a model would have to be chosen.

Would Australians vote in their president? Would the Prime Minister appoint a prominent Australian like they do with the Governor-General? Until that question is answered, the Republic won’t be a reality.

"Once Australians have said whether they want an Australian head of state, the next thing is Australians have to decide what kind of president we should have, how the person should be chosen,” ARM’s Michael Cooney said ahead of the gala dinner Bill Shorten was headlining.

Some Republicans even suggest that too should be put to the people.

That would mean one vote to see if there’s an appetite to change. A second vote on how we’d pick the President. Then finally a referendum to change the constitution.

Referenda are notoriously hard to pass – requiring a majority of voters and a majority of states. And right now support for the monarchy is as strong as it's been in some time.
If they are going to do it like that, then I actually agree with the two monarchist organizations, and believe the monarchists would win.

There have been some polls on the net today (including in this article) and most of them show a lead for the monarchists (not to be taken seriously, i know). I also read the Facebook comments on ABC/Sky News Australia sites, and the vast majority were negative to spend a lot of money on this as long as the Queen lives.
 
Last edited:
Well my thoughts exactly ..... but this thread has unravelled ..... :unsure:
Muhler responded (in January) to one post by eya where the Australian Monarchist League told its members to start preparing for the death of the Queen, warning it will feel as though a safety net has disappeared. And I don't think this thread has unravelled at all.
 
How do you change the Australian Constitution in the first place?
This, I imagine, is very much a change of the Constitution.

Would a 51 % majority of votes be enough? Or do you need a X % majority of the voters to vote in favor of a change? (That makes a huge difference!)

Actually it is 50%+1 - not even 51% e.g. if there are 15 million voters and 7,500,001 vote yes and 7,4999,999 vote No it is a Yes vote.

There is another wrinkle however - there also has to be 4 out of 6 states vote yes.

It is called the 'double majority' - majority of the population and a majority of the states.

It actually means we could end up with a relatively high percentage voting one way - well over 50% but it still not getting up if the smaller states voted no.

IMO a yes/no to a republic cannot be anything but a political guideline, if there are no concrete alternatives presented to the voters.

That is why it would be a plebiscite and not a referendum. It is a technical difference of course but it is still a difference.

The republicans can't say after a yes, to a republic, that a republic is now certain and that the monarchy has been finally rejected, on the basis of such a referendum.

If such a plebiscite was a vote for Yes then the government would have to continually put referenda to the people on the type of republic we wanted until a model received the requisite 50%+1 and 4/6 states' support.

It only means that a majority of the voters wish to be presented with alternatives to a monarchy.
So a yes to a republic, does not automatically mean a no to the monarchy.

Yes it does as that would be the very question - 'Do you want to be a republic?'

No would mean No to a monarchy.

It could be binding if the referendum presented these alternatives:
Do you prefer:
A) A monarch as head of state, status quo.
B) A politically neutral president as head of state
C) A president with executive powers?
D) The Speaker of the Parliament as head of state?
- and so on.
But presented with such an option, the republicans would extremely likely to loose the first round. Because the republican votes would be divided.

Referenda in Australia can't present alternatives.

The only type of question we can have are straight Yes/No - no options.

That is why a one off question 'Do you want Australia to be a Republic?' would also rule out the first option if it was a Yes vote. That option would have been voted out.

Then each of the other options would have to go to a separate question and one at a time - not at the same time - as that could lead to a series of Yeses and we would be no further ahead.

What would happen is that the Republicans would get together and put their preferred option to a referendum. If that is successful then that is the model but if it isn't then another referendum on a different model until there is a Yes vote. It could be one vote or it could take many votes and even revisit models previously rejected.

Along with the way of choosing the new Head of State they would also have to consider the powers of that Head of State - the minimalist simply replacing the monarch's powers as exercised by the GG or more limited or greater powers.

Then there is the situation with the states - are they separate monarchies (given that they all had to pass the recent Succession to the Crown Act before it went to the Federal parliament that would suggest 'yes they are' but there was also a challenge to that idea some years ago that suggest that they aren't separate monarchies in some circumstances. So would it actually be possible that Australia was a republic but say Queensland remained a monarchy with the monarch of the UK still appointing the State Governor as his/her representative in that state.

This is a complicated process and all that Shorten is promising is step 1 of a process that could take years to accomplish.
 
As I wrote in my other posts, It's likely to happen like this:

1. A plebiscite in Bill Shorten first term on a straightforward question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?" That would mean one vote to see if there’s an appetite to change.

2. A second vote on how to pick the President. After much debate - likely a choice betwen an apolitical president elected by direct election, or the parliament.

3. Then finally a referendum to change the constitution.
 
Thank you for a very comprehensive reply, Iluvbertie. :flowers:

What I meant by a yes at such a referendum, not necessarily leading to an abolishment of the monarchy, is that it's a plebiscite. And as I understand it the politicians are not obligated to adhere to the result.
Another matter is if the republicans can't agree on presenting a solution a majority will accept or that it takes so long that the monarchists can mobilize enough opposition to a republic to call for a new referendum.

Personally I find the notion of a plebiscite, which the politicians are not obliged to respect, pretty chilling. I don't trust the politicians enough to let them take major decisions without a binding referendum. In fact a referendum giving the politicians here in DK permission to not necessarily putting major issues up for referendum was rejected here in DK about a year ago - after a referendum...

Where are the republicans stronger? In rural Australia? Or in the cities? If rural Australia is pro-monarchy it would AFAIU (as far as I understand) mean that three or four states are likely to vote no.

I've tried to view myself as a new Australian, having immigrated to Australia say some fifteen years ago and gained citizenship five years ago. I.e. While I would very much feel Australia is my country, I wouldn't be an Anglo-Saxon Australian and have no particular affiliation to the BRF, not even QEII. Nor would the cultural and historical bonds to UK mean that much to me personally.
I would look at whether this meant anything in regards to diplomatic and economic connections to UK and the rest of the Commonwealth. - Wouldn't make much difference I believe.
Okay, feeling Australian and seeing the future for me and my children in Australia I would probably be in favor of having an Australian head of state, so I would lean towards a republic.
(That I'm a hardcore monarchist here in DK is beside the point, because that's the best form of government in DK, IMO).
The decisive point for me would be how the Australian president would be appointed and what political power such a president has.
Having a president with no constitutional power at all, would IMO be meaningless, so a president should have some political role, like appointing governments.
Having to vote among a number a candidates every few years, would IMO be pretty silly and a waste of money. - So that option would get a no.
Okay, a president appointed by politicians, mostly from their own ranks then? - Bah! Having has-been politicians as presidents? Yeah, hurrah! - No!
Okay, how about appointed former diplomats as presidents? Say former ambassadors? - They are more or less politically neutral, having been career diplomats. And they are well versed in what to say and do, and in representing Australia and themselves. - They will also be pretty much unknown by the general public. But looking detached at the issue that option would get a yes from me.
That's the detached, objective view on the issue. Now we come to feelings. As a fairly new Australian, who do I look to when I wave the flag or something serious has happened in Australia? (I can't answer that, not being an Australian.) Do I feel a former ambassador is the best suited for the Australians to rally around? Or can the BRF fill that role? - That would depend so much on the BRF!
So to conclude this thought-experiment, I would probably be about 60 % republican.

- Am I completely off the mark here in regards to the sentiments of many Australians?

Forgive me if this doesn't make too much sense, I'm right now together with a handful of parents keeping an eye on a teenage party, and that's pretty distracting! ? (We need a smiley holding his ears!)
 
Last edited:
As an Aussie of several decades standing, Muhler, I think many Australians won't be stuffed to go and vote on the issue. That's the honest truth.

We have compulsory voting here, for Federal, State and local government elections, (which are always held on a Saturday.) I'm a lifelong Labour/Australian Labor Party supporter, and have helped the ALP in several capacities over the years at Federal and State elections. I've stood there sometimes, handing out 'How to Vote ALP' cards (under our system it's not 'first past the post') and know that a lot of voters (perhaps a majority) would not be lining up to vote if it were not for the fact that here you are fined if you do not present yourself to vote on Election Day or send in a prior absentee vote (holiday/on business away etc.)

Plebiscites by their very nature are (usually) voluntary. Referenda are not. That's what scares me about this. The young, energetic, politically aware, will trot off to vote in this plebiscite. The old, congenitally ill, those with no interest in the political process, those who have difficulty reading English or reading forms of any kind, likely will not.

People eager to change to a new system will be all charged up to get to that booth and change things. Those who don't care or think the result is a foregone conclusion probably won't bother to turn out to defend the status quo.(As we saw with Brexit.)

As a monarchist I intend to vote No. However, I recognise that this is a brilliant move by Bill Shorten, a committed republican. I might be cynical but I think by holding a plebiscite he knows the average Aussie voter very well.
 
Last edited:
Actually it is 50%+1 - not even 51% e.g. if there are 15 million voters and 7,500,001 vote yes and 7,4999,999 vote No it is a Yes vote.

There is another wrinkle however - there also has to be 4 out of 6 states vote yes.

It is called the 'double majority' - majority of the population and a majority of the states.

It actually means we could end up with a relatively high percentage voting one way - well over 50% but it still not getting up if the smaller states voted no.



That is why it would be a plebiscite and not a referendum. It is a technical difference of course but it is still a difference.



If such a plebiscite was a vote for Yes then the government would have to continually put referenda to the people on the type of republic we wanted until a model received the requisite 50%+1 and 4/6 states' support.



Yes it does as that would be the very question - 'Do you want to be a republic?'

No would mean No to a monarchy.



Referenda in Australia can't present alternatives.

The only type of question we can have are straight Yes/No - no options.

That is why a one off question 'Do you want Australia to be a Republic?' would also rule out the first option if it was a Yes vote. That option would have been voted out.

Then each of the other options would have to go to a separate question and one at a time - not at the same time - as that could lead to a series of Yeses and we would be no further ahead.

What would happen is that the Republicans would get together and put their preferred option to a referendum. If that is successful then that is the model but if it isn't then another referendum on a different model until there is a Yes vote. It could be one vote or it could take many votes and even revisit models previously rejected.

Along with the way of choosing the new Head of State they would also have to consider the powers of that Head of State - the minimalist simply replacing the monarch's powers as exercised by the GG or more limited or greater powers.

Then there is the situation with the states - are they separate monarchies (given that they all had to pass the recent Succession to the Crown Act before it went to the Federal parliament that would suggest 'yes they are' but there was also a challenge to that idea some years ago that suggest that they aren't separate monarchies in some circumstances. So would it actually be possible that Australia was a republic but say Queensland remained a monarchy with the monarch of the UK still appointing the State Governor as his/her representative in that state.

This is a complicated process and all that Shorten is promising is step 1 of a process that could take years to accomplish.

Can plebiscites be held on constitutional matters ? It appears that Shorten's game plan is a succession of technically non-binding plebiscites that nevertheless would make the republic look like a fait accompli and then influence the results of a future binding referendum. To me, that looks awfully like cheating, in other words trying to force a constitutional amendment through the back door circumventing the proper amendment procedures. If he wins the election and puts a plebiscite bill before parliament, I would advise the monarchists to challenge it in the High Court.
 
Last edited:
Plebiscites, like refereda are compulsory in this country. The reason for compulsory voting is actually to force the government to get the polling station to the people - otherwise many Australians wouldn't be able to vote due to their distance from a town and thus from a polling station.

Yes plebiscites can be held on constitutional matters. They can be held on any matter.

Referenda must be used to change the constitution.

As for a career diplomat - that limits the field remarkably as most of the senior diplomatic posts, the ones that people would know about, are former politicians e.g the current High Commissioner to the UK (the equal top diplomatic post for an Aussie - the other being the Ambassador to the US) is Andrew Downer, former leader of the Liberal Party. The current Ambassador to the US is Joe Hockey another former leading light in the Liberal Party. He replaced Kim Beazley, former leader of the ALP.

Many former politicians in Australia actually go onto to be diplomats as a reward for their service to the country.

What we will end up with is quite clear - either former politicians or celebrities.

Shorten is doing what should have been done in the first place. Asking whether Australians actually want to be a republic. Had that been done in 1999 we would be well on the way now as there was over 60% support for a republic but many of them voted no due to the model put forward - many stated that very fact. They rejected the model not the concept.

If Shorten puts the question to the people of whether they want to be a republic and the vote is 'no' he won't go ahead with anything further as that would mean the people have voted to remain a monarchy with a non-Aussie as their Head of State.

Given the furore about dual citizens at the moment it does seem strange that a person who chooses to become an Aussie, even though they also are a citizen of another country, can't be elected to the parliaments in this country but a foreigner who may or may not be a dual citizen can be the Head of State. That would even be an interesting constitutional argument.

As both Rudd, in 2007 and then Julia, in 2010 both promised this plebiscite in their first terms and it never happened I am not holding my breath just yet.

Who supports the republicans - rural versus city - city by far and we are one of the most urbanised countries on earth. Last polls support for a republic growing Australian public: poll shows support at record levels again. It isn't as high as it was in the 90s but it is growing. The impact of William and Kate's tour in 2014 has disappeared with support returning to the republican ideal.

Earlier last year the figures were the other way round Nocookies | The Australian with the younger people supporting the monarchy.
 
Plebiscites in this country have NOT been compulsory for voters in the past. We await to see whether the Shorten government will go with a compulsory vote on this.

Your questions on notice - Question details

http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/referendums-and-plebiscites.html

I'm well aware of the historical reasons for compulsory voting in elections. My views still stand that, unfortunately, many many Aussies are not particularly interested in the political process and probably wouldn't bother to vote if they weren't fined for not doing so.

I well remember the last vote on a republic. There were a lot of republicans confident that there would be a Yes vote then too.
 
Last edited:
Australia can only become a republic by abolishing the Australian monarchy, and that comes down to the text of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. It can be done by merging the Queen and the Governor-General into a presidency by amending the current text, or by replacing the current text all together. Either way, it must be approved by a majority of voters in the majority of States. Non-binding plebiscites, jingoistic squabbles over who is or is not heads of state, and all those old cliches about apron strings, cutting ties and standing on our own two feet, are irrelevant. Republicans need to propose a couple of viable, alternative models, complete with a draft of the required constitutional changes. Until then there is nothing to consider.


7. From me to australians: I'm so tired (as a half-Brit) of this nonsense, so just spend a lot of money on electing that president of yours, who will not have a fraction of the Queen's popularity. So do it now, it's Australia's loss. It was nice to share the world's most popular/iconic and famous head of state with you, but goodbye and good luck!

You're tired of this nonsense? How do you think we feel? But, quite frankly, Royal Norway, the issue has bugger all to do with the United Kingdom, so there's no reason for a half-Brit to let it get on their nerves.
 
:previous: Chubb Fuddler, nice to see you back. A bit difficult to understand for a non-Australian all this - because the commentators say something different from what Iluvbertie writes while the politicians say something different from that again. What do you think - will Shorten succeed?

Some commentators (or so-called experts) says it could happen like this this:

1. A plebiscite in Bill Shorten first term on a straightforward question: "Do you support an Australian republic with an Australian head of state?" That would mean one vote to see if there’s an appetite to change.

2. A second vote in the next term on how to pick the President. After much debate - likely a choice betwen an apolitical president elected by direct election, or the parliament.

3. Then finally a referendum to change the constitution.

While other politicians says this:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/vic/a/36543977/shorten-vows-republic-vote-in-first-term/#page1
Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese dismissed suggestions there would be a need for two plebiscites - one to determine if Australians wanted a republic, then a second to approve a model - as well as a referendum to change the constitution.

A model would emerge by consensus during the debate to the first plebiscite about an Australian head of state, he said.

"It's a plan to achieve a republic by doing it in a two-stage process," Mr Albanese told Sky News of the Labor proposal.

As both Rudd, in 2007 and then Julia, in 2010 both promised this plebiscite in their first terms and it never happened I am not holding my breath just yet.
But she also said this: ''The appropriate time to be a republic is when we see the monarch change. Obviously, I'm hoping for Queen Elizabeth that she lives a long and happy life, and having watched her mother I think there's every chance she will.''
 
Last edited:
Muhler responded (in January) to one post by eya where the Australian Monarchist League told its members to start preparing for the death of the Queen, warning it will feel as though a safety net has disappeared. And I don't think this thread has unravelled at all.

This is actually a very interesting thread (as personally not being well versed on Australian policy) but it did seem to be running away with its self where the Queen was concerned a few pages back! :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom